MRS SHANTHAMMA MARGAMAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Shanthamma Margamappa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.203, Agara Village, Ward - 4(3)(4), H S R Layout Post, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 102. Pan : Atmpm 5572 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Lakshmi K, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2019

house property and capital gains, filed her return of income on 30.08.2015 declaring income of Rs.7,37,800/-. The return was processed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and the case was subsequently selected for scrutiny for the Assessment Year Page 2 of 15 2015-16 to examine “sale consideration of property

MR. PRAKASH CHAND BETHALA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2007-08

2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply

S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

2 consists of more than one house the provisions of this sub-section shall apply only in respect of such one house which the assessee at his option specify in this belief. The ALV of the house not self occupied shall be determined as per provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act. Therefore, the house

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

house property. 11. The ground of appeal in respect of processing fee and pre-payment charges to be allowed u/s 24(b), the learned AR substantiated his argument relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pentagram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT in ITA No.3713/Mu/2010 & ITA No.4526/Mum/2010 dated 12/08/2011 and referred to paras

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

house property. 11. The ground of appeal in respect of processing fee and pre-payment charges to be allowed u/s 24(b), the learned AR substantiated his argument relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pentagram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT in ITA No.3713/Mu/2010 & ITA No.4526/Mum/2010 dated 12/08/2011 and referred to paras

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

house property. 11. The ground of appeal in respect of processing fee and pre-payment charges to be allowed u/s 24(b), the learned AR substantiated his argument relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pentagram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT in ITA No.3713/Mu/2010 & ITA No.4526/Mum/2010 dated 12/08/2011 and referred to paras

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property, Profits and gains of business or profession, Capital gains and Income from other sources. Sec. 28 of the Act lays down various categories of income that shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". The income of the Assessee in the present case would fall within

SMT. SARITHA JAIN,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-1(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 51/Bang/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Saritha Jain, The Income Tax Flat No. 3, 28/1, Officer Gowri Kunj, (International Palace Cross Road, Taxation), Vasanth Nagar, Ward – 1(1), Bengaluru – 560 020. Vs. Bengaluru. Pan: Aedpj9216L Appellant Respondent

2 Village, 50,00,000 97,20,000 Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk Measuring 5717.25 sq.ft. 2.4 The Ld.AO thus invoked the provisions of section 50C and recomputed the capital gains by adopting the guidance value as under: 2.5 Further, the Ld.AO also noted that the assessee was in possession of more than one residential house property

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property and business income (renumeration and share of profit from partnership firms). For the AY 2021-22, the assessee filed his return of income on 15/03/2022 by declaring total income of Rs.5,07,94,880/-. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 28/03/2022. Subsequently, the rectification order

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property and business income (renumeration and share of profit from partnership firms). For the AY 2021-22, the assessee filed his return of income on 15/03/2022 by declaring total income of Rs.5,07,94,880/-. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 28/03/2022. Subsequently, the rectification order

SMT. G N LAKSHMI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Assessment Year : 2012 – 13 Smt. G. N. Lakshmi, Represented By Poa Holder Sri G. R. Nagaraj, Vs. Ito, Ward – 5 (2) (3), No. 11, Rajathagiri, Rangarao Road, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560004 Pan: Aocpg8316F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prashanth G. S., C. A. Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2019

section 50C of I. T. Act to adopt sale consideration of Rs. 17.30 Lacs in place of sale proceeds of Rs. 5.50 Lacs for relinquishment of Development Rights. 3. In course of hearing, it is submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that as noted by the AO in Para 5, page 2 of the assessment order, the assessee

GREEN ORCHAND FARM HOUSES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

Houses, Bangalore Page 24 of 25 35 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 accepts challenging the arbitration award before higher forum. Once the assessee accepts the arbitration award, it should be complied in letter and spirit. As such, the assessee has executed the sale deed in respect of properties at Rs.2 crores per acre. Thus, section 43CA

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank of Commissioner of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. PAN: ACWPT0308C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue by : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 ORDER PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Instant appeal

M/S FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

50C(1) Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases.(1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushama Rajesh Rao, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.159, Priyadarshani, R. T. Nagar, Of Income Tax, Mla Layout, Circle – 6(2)(1), Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. Pan : Acypr 5251 J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025

50C of the Act is unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the in case of dispute in value of the property, the valuation of the property ought to have been referred to a Valuation Officer in accordance with the provisions of section

SMT SUSHAMA RAJESH RAO ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and the Stay Petition filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Lalit Kumar

2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under :- 2.1 The assessee filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 30.08.2012 declaring income of Rs.33,71,480 from rental income, capital gains, income from house property and income from other sources. The assessee subsequently filed a revised return on 5.8.2013 declaring income

SPARKLE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2017-18

property with the KEHBC Society, where the sale price of Rs.1,650/- per sqft. 5. The Pr. CIT was not correct in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant Company already fixed the sale price to Society before formation of sites and said price of Rs.1650/- is inclusive of land cost, development cost and margin for layout formation

SRI SUBHASH CHAND AGARWAL,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal, The Income Tax #27/6, New Bamboo Officer, Vs. Bazaar, 3Rd Cross, Ward – 5 [2] [2], Bangalore – 560 002. Bangalore. Pan: Achpa1073E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019

section 50C and making addition of Rs. 4 Lakhs on account of difference in value as per sale deed and as per stamp duty value then also the net long term capital gain will be Nil because the eligible exemption / deduction u/s. 54(1) will be higher than that amount of capital gain. When we examine the applicability of this